But there's a great deal of anecdotal evidence that some sort of grid exists, and that it can be detected and delineated by many ordinary, simple people (like me) using ordinary simple tools. Lacking pure scientific evidence of the highest quality one can still get started with anecdotal evidence if that's the only thing available.

Charlie
If you stopped and thought about what you have written above, you may wish to retract it.

Just to stick the knife in and twist it, I will say:

There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence:
- that the Loch Ness Monster exists
- that vampires lurk in Transylvania
- that Elvis Prestley is still alive
- that aliens have landed
- that President Obama was not an American citizen
- that man did not land on the moon and it's a hoax.

and many ordinary people believe in some or one of the above.

None of which makes any of them true.

Anecdotal evidence on a subject which is capable of scientific proof and has been for decades is risible.

"Divining rods and all common dowsing devices, are the simplest forms of electroscopes."
http://www2.connect.ab.ca/~tylosky/
Very interesting view on dowsing... !
Most of the links at this page don't work, except the ones that point to "The Human Energy Field in Relation to Science, Consciousness, and Health" by Gloria Alvino (Part 1: http://www.vxm.com/21R.43.html and Part 2: http://www.vxm.com/21R.54.html)
... which is also a most interesting read for anyone really interested in and open for a possible explanation of dowsing.

Steve—
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I was surprised—and highly gratified —to get it. It would have taken me about half a day to formulate a such a post, with the same degree of care that's evident in yours. As Adam suggests, I just haven't the time right now to respond in kind and degree, but I'll make the time this week to at least address some parts.

For the time being I can at least clear up a bit of confusion I caused—sorry about that— by not being specific with the term 'anecdotal evidence'. I was using it as it's used frequently in the medical literature, particularly, as you alluded to, in regard to the efficacy of certain food supplements for certain medical issues. I hadn't considered the wide spectrum of 'evidences' that 'anecdotal' can be applied to, from the strongly compelling for even the most rock-ribbed rationalist, all the way down to the floridly imaginative assertions you might hear in the back wards of mental hospitals!

Lacking pure scientific evidence of the highest quality one can still get started with anecdotal evidence if that's the only thing available.

Charlie
If you stopped and thought about what you have written above, you may wish to retract it.

Just to stick the knife in and twist it, I will say:

There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence:
- that the Loch Ness Monster exists
- that vampires lurk in Transylvania
- that Elvis Prestley is still alive
- that aliens have landed
- that President Obama was not an American citizen
- that man did not land on the moon and it's a hoax.
....

Anecdotal evidence on a subject which is capable of scientific proof and has been for decades is risible.

Wow! Madas.—Thanks for all the good ammo! Appreciate it. (BTW, would you and Jumbleoak Puh-leeze give us names that are bit easier to use than your usernames??!!)

What I hear you saying, rather loudly in fact, is that nearly all anecdotal evidence is worthless. Such a notion is indeed risible—if not fatuous— and you might want to clarify if that really isn’t what you’re saying. Lumping together any and all forms of evidence that don’t fit someone’s particular and personally unique and undefined template of Proper and Rigorously Scientific as being unworthy of one’s lofty consideration is not only idiotic but intellectually dishonest as well. I think you’d agree. I’m not saying (exactly) you’re doing that, but that’s certainly where you’re trending when you list six items of varyingly held beliefs without making the slightest distinction between them. In fact, they range from the absurd to the highly plausible, depending on the amount and quality of evidence supporting each item. If there’s a lawyer out there that could give us all a quick lesson on the various types and efficacies of evidence, please do speak up. We have a serious labeling issue here!

Now, back to practical matters. Before this thread can go anywhere useful, there needs to be more than just a couple of participants who have some experience with rudimentary ‘dowsing’. I have a personal distaste for that term because of all the associations and connotations clinging to it like burrs on the butt of a shaggy dog; when I use it—for lack of a better term— I refer only to the use of L-bent wires/rods for the detection of certain metals, water (at least to shallow depths) and this grid thingy. I was shown how to do it (using a spoon in the sod), and I’ve never tried to tell someone how, but I’m willing to give that a try if anyone is interested. The difficulty lies primarily in holding the rods in a way that they’re free enough to swivel in the hands but not so free as to respond to every step, hick-up, or breath of breeze. Keeping the hands steady also takes some practice. It’s my fixed belief that, while there is a degree of physical skill involved (about like riding a bike), anyone can acquire such skill without any gymnastics of the psyche.
Once this skill has been developed a bit, picking up the grid’s layout is just a matter of following a relatively simple procedure that sorts out most of the confusing rod responses that Andy talks about above. Again, if anyone’s interested, let me know. Finally, I can describe a test that will demonstrate whether or not there’s an objective ‘grid’ existing external to and independent of any particular observer. I am predicting that, even if several people on this site carry out this, or a similar test, with the same positive results, folks like (Madasafish and Jumble Oak will continue to fall dead-center in the category: A Person Convinced Against His Will Is Of the Same Opinion Still. More about such brittleness and the irrationality of Rationalism later.

I have read many books about dowsing and have played with it for many years. I appear to get responses from pendulums, L-rods, forked twigs and other devices, but I have failed to devise any test that I can apply to myself in an attempt to establish if such responses correlate with anything in the 'real' world.

I have walked across open spaces and felt the device move, but unless I were to dig a possibly very deep hole, I have no idea if there is anything of note beneath me. As for water, I would lay odds that drilling holes at random in Devon would turn up plenty of underground streams and wells, without recourse to dowsing. But of course, I cannot prove that either.

If I were to get a regular 'grid' response, I would suspect that I was subconsciously 'pacing', unless a categorically objective test could be devised, double blind, to see if a statistically significant number of people could detect a similar grid in the same places, under similar conditions. But such a test has never - to my knowledge - been devised, and until it is, the arguments will go on swinging to and fro.

I refer only to the use of L-bent wires/rods for the detection of ... this grid thingy

You've dowsed it. Now, don't be coy:
- What were you dowsing for (i.e. were you focussing on 'Hartmann Grid', 'Stress Lines' or what)?
- What exactly was the outcome? Include dimensions, please.

(As I said to you almost 2 years ago now:

Quote:

I am no kind of dowser. I easily get a response, but have never tested for a result and am sceptical about the whole thing. I do know sincere people who (modestly) claim success. I have not tried to dowse the Hartmann Net/Grid, and, frankly, do not believe it exists - at best it is part of a mish-mash of energy lines, as you have so well described, and is therefore practically useless (against cancer / for bees / etc / etc).

You've dowsed it. Now, don't be coy:
- What were you dowsing for (i.e. were you focussing on 'Hartmann Grid', 'Stress Lines' or what)?
- What exactly was the outcome? Include dimensions, please.

Until I learned of this whole Hartman Grid business here on this site, I’d only dowsed for water pipes (plastic or iron, no discernible difference) and concealed metal—always an iron alloy if I recall. In fact, that’s how I was introduced to dowsing about 35 yrs. ago.
Place: a side yard at Fire Station 22 on the outskirts of Austin, Texas. Chores are done, no alarms that shift so far, guys are tired of studying for promotional exams and boredom reigns supreme on that warm, still, spring evening. Some of the guys are out there on the lawn and I’m curious to see what they’re up to. Our boss—Lt. Jim Elliot, says “Charlie, c’mere here—ya gotta see this.” He’s got a pair of coat hanger wires bent into L’s, hands them to me and shows me just how he wants me to hold them. Bill Meador is standing about 6-7 yards away across the Bermuda grass lawn; I’m told to face him with the rods pointing away from me, towards him, then told to shut my eyes and "Don’t Peek!" I heard nothing, then, after a moment Rene Vallejo tells me to open my eyes and, holding the wires as steady as possible, walk very slowly straight towards Bill. I proceed for about 6-8 ft. when the wires, entirely of their own accord, swing inward. Rene says “OK-Stop!” now look down and feel around in the sod right there in front of your feet.” (I hadn't yet stepped on anything). I did that and almost immediately felt something hard and cold, just under the sod and completely hidden, that turned out to be Jim’s Buck pocket knife. That really got my attention. (I think I yelled Yikes! and dropped the knife like it was a hot poker.) Spent the rest of the evening trying out the rods on different materials and pondering the meaning and ramifications of it all. You see, I’d already acquired a strong belief/mind/cultural ‘set’ running dead counter to any and all aspects of New Age activity, especially messing around with the occult. I didn’t consider dowsing to be that kind of activity, but nevertheless had a vague, slightly queasy unease about dowsing rather than any thought through opinions on it. Still, I hadn’t been seeking this thing out at all—ever; it just showed up, as it were. Also, Jim, Bill, and Rene were as steady, ordinary, conventional, solid, hard working citizens as you could ever find anywhere. They were all good family men, given mainly to minding their own business and emphatically Not to philosophizing, idle speculation, or introspection. I don’t think I ever knew which of them had introduced the others to the phenomenon. We all just came to use it over the ensuing months and years like any other skill/tool and never thought much, if at all, about it. Until two years ago, that is.

What I focus on is keeping my hands steady so that I'm not what's making the rods swing. If I'm on rough ground I also try not to stumble on or into anything. If I'm dowsing for the grid I also try to keep any placed marker tags out of my field of vision. That's enough to keep my mind occupied; I certainly don't mutter to myself "pipeline, pipeline, pipeline" or whatever. Strikes me as silly, probably counter-productive to boot.

Tomorrow I'll go out and locate two cell pairs (Hartmann and Curry), widely —about 100 yds.— separate and out-of-sight from each other. The flattish places are on opposite sides of a low ridge at about the same elevation. I'll get back to you soon with the results.

Phil—
The test I described in the old thread, using triangulation and two—maybe three— investigators would be double blind and replicable. I want to try it out first with one or two friends to iron out kinks and technique details. I have no investment whatsoever in the outcome.
Like I told Barbara, all this has to come first before any discussion about the grid's effect on bees and Varroa would be meaningful. I.e.
1. Are we finding an objective grid? If so...
2. How do we pass on to others the skill of finding it?
Only then do we have any business asking:
3.What is the effect on a colony placed at a grid intersection?

However, between steps 2. and 3. we can indulge in some harmless armchair theorizing about why the grid might have a beneficial influence on the bees.

^^^ So, in fact, you have not dowsed the Hartmann Grid at all to date.

Where did you get that idea? I think you may have thought that the test I spoke of to Phil and the mapping out of the grid were one and the same thing. Anyway, yes I have 'dowsed' it (however we might define that operation) last year and then a few months ago, when I made a stab at finding the Curry grid at the same time. Things seemed to be going smoothly so I left off completing the latter. Figured that when the time came to site the hive tower I wouldn’t have much trouble working out the grid.
Last year I worked out two Hartmann cells with a few "leg" extensions, but didn't attempt working out the Curry grid at all. Today, after a late start, I got going on a layout at a new site, locating both grids simultaneously. After two aborted starts, (which wasted a lot of time) I discovered that after an unusually wet season the rods are way too sensitive to all manner of influences, especially in lower places close to drain ways. I went upslope to a much dryer site and there started getting some coherent responses. I've got a couple of Hartmann cells nearly finished and two crossing Curry lines. Nevertheless, there's some confusion around one of the Hartmann corners. I need to sort that out, and get at least one entire Curry cell mapped as well, so I’ll have the dimensions of both grids. So far, I’ve noticed no discernible difference between the grids in the strength of rod response.
Stay tuned.

Until I learned of this whole Hartman Grid business here on this site, I’d only dowsed for water pipes

<snipped>

Charlie

It doesn't mention dowsing for the grid at all. Anyway, now you say you have, so never mind the still to do stuff, please answer the questions previously put:

Quote:

- What were you dowsing for (i.e. were you focussing on 'Hartmann Grid', 'Stress Lines' or what)?
- What exactly was the outcome? Include dimensions, please.

I'm not asking for a finished map of the Hartmann Grid; just for the detail of what you have actually done. (Also, it will be more interesting to hear how it progresses and changes, rather just hearing about a finished article.)

J.O.—
I’m more than happy to relate as much as I can about grid stalking using L-rods, but before you or anyone else tries picking out the grids you should first get some practice with well concealed hunks of iron, water pipes that you have at least a rough idea of where they lie, etc. If you aren’t confident that the rod swings are true responses, then I don’t recommend trying to find the H—C grids. It’s not that the responses are any weaker than what you’d get from a water pipe 2’ down, but you need to know that you aren’t what’s causing the response. You’ve not indicated so far that you’ve done this, or even that you have any intention of doing so.

Nevertheless, here are some details.

Made some good head way this evening before getting rained out. First some thoughts about the interaction between what I’m expecting and what I’m getting in rod responses. I’m well aware, of course, that what I expect, namely response points that will reveal, by degrees, two overlying rectilinear grids, one oriented fairly close to the cardinal compass points and the other fairly close to a 45 degree angle to it, may well alter what I get in the way of responses. I expect neither exact right angles at the corners of each grid, nor exact 45 degree superimposition, one grid to the other. I do expect straight lines over distances of up to 10 M., but longer than that I would not be surprised by perfectly straight, or gentle and fair curved, or even squiggly lines in some places. Also, I do not expect dimensional consistency at distances over perhaps 50M., if that far.
One of the biggest challenges to discerning the grids is that their ‘lines’ aren’t lines at all but rather blurry bands about 2dm. wide as far as I can tell. Likewise, a pair of handheld L-rods hardly constitute a precision instrument; fuzziness is multiplied as a result. To keep total confusion somewhat at bay, I’m trying to develop some techniques that can be incorporated into an efficient method that will yield good, consistent results. I’m borrowing from a number of disciplines including putting together big jigsaw puzzles, solving crossword puzzles, land surveying, archaeology, and astronomy. Here are some of these techniques, in no particular order.
1. Use plenty of bright, color coded markers that can be easily stuck into firm soil. Use one color for Hartman lines, another for Hartmann corners/nodes, ditto for Curry lines and nodes, and a fifth for where the grids intersect. If you don’t do this, the whole undertaking soon devolves into chaos and the otherwise intrepid investigator throws down his rods (or twists them into coat hangers) all the while muttering a flow of rich, Anglo-Saxon invective.
2. Prepare or pick the site carefully. Flat and level helps, although neither is critical. Recently mown helps. Avoid sites where there’s a likelihood of well-charged aquifers not far below the surface. I’m not all that sure about this, but if you get rod responses every yard or so just about everywhere you turn, shift sites.
3. Use a good compass to get started. It’s important to have an initial orientation with NSEW lying within 10 deg. of true.
4. Don’t mess with string lines at first, they’ll just slow you down.
5. If you hit a spot where there’s a tight, bewildering welter of responses, you’ve probably got the node of one grid falling within a yard or less of a node of the other grid. Save this spot for last and then ‘back into it’ like working out a tough patch in a cross-word puzzle. Likewise, if you think you’ve got a node but the intersecting lines are obviously not perpendicular, you’ve probably made a mistake. Or gotten tangled by an unknown water pipe, buried horseshoe, etc. Move on to another line and come back to the problem spot.

This'll have to do for now. I'm tired and heading for bed. Meanwhile, if you or anyone else has anything constructive, preferably concrete, to offer, please do so.

Hey! J.Oak/Ian—
Your post came after I’d written the following, but hadn’t yet submitted, so first things first:
Have I got a nice coconut cream pie for you!
http://beekeeping132.rssing.com/chan-6250361/all_p89.html
Scroll down to the entries on 03/24 at 09:02, 09:55, and mine at 18:52 hrs. (GMT). Didja notice the thread they came from— hm?,hm? So—how does it taste? Pretty yummy isn’t it? Actually, I really, honestly, didn’t go out looking for pie to fling, rather came on that while Googling around for anything useful about the H-C grid. It seems just about everything out there falls near two antipodes: One requires a double doctorate in geophysics and electrical engineering, the other requires a willingness to engage one’s chi-aura thingy within the Telluric vortices; provided, of course, that the Fresnic modulatory oscillations of the Astral emanations have been properly aligned with one’s meridianal tslong bey. And it should go without saying that all this also depends on the lunar phase.
One thing I did get out of this bit of searching was a hint of what you might have been alluding to when you were asking what I ‘focus’ on while dowsing. A couple of times I came across a reference to ‘intent’ or intention’ or ‘visualization’. But it all seemed so La-La Landian I didn’t give it much credence. (Just how does a sacred menhir circle come to be imbued with ‘intent’, anyway? Can you ‘intent-ize’ something?) Call me a witless clodpoll, but can you help me out here?

Now to your post:
I’ll attempt to answer your first question by quoting myself from the few posts I’ve made.

1. ”Until I learned of this whole Hartman Grid business here on this site, I’d only dowsed for water pipes….” I thought the word ‘until’ directly implied that since then I have dowsed the Hartmann Grid. You obviously didn’t pick up on that.
2. ”What I focus on is keeping my hands steady so that I'm not what's making the rods swing. If I'm on rough ground I also try not to stumble on or into anything. If I'm dowsing for the grid I also try to keep any placed marker tags out of my field of vision. That's enough to keep my mind occupied;”
3. ”Tomorrow I'll go out and locate two cell pairs (Hartmann and Curry), widely —about 100 yds.— separate and out of sight from each other.”
4. ”…a few months ago, when I made a stab at finding the Curry grid at the same time.”
5. ”Last year I worked out two Hartmann cells with a few "leg" extensions, but didn't attempt working out the Curry grid at all.“
6. ”Today, after a late start, I got going on a layout at a new site, locating both grids simultaneously."
7. “I’ve got a couple of Hartmann cells nearly finished and two crossing Curry lines. Nevertheless, there's some confusion around one of the Hartmann corners. I need to sort that out, and get at least one entire Curry cell mapped as well, so I’ll have the dimensions of both grids. So far, I’ve noticed no discernible difference between the grids in the strength of rod response.”

These statements, within the context of the topic of this thread, have still not persuaded you that I’ve been in the process of once again dowsing the Hartmann Grid. Furthermore, I'm persuaded that whatever in the world you can possibly mean by ‘focussing on’, besides what I’ve already described, is completely beyond me.

Your second question: “- What exactly was the outcome? Include dimensions, please.” you’ve amended, if not contradicted, with “I’m not asking for a finished map of the Hartmann Grid;” “just for the detail of what you have actually done. (Also, it will be more interesting to hear how it progresses and changes, rather just hearing about a finished article.)"

I had hoped (springing eternal) that my last post would convey, indirectly perhaps, that dowsing the grids (and I trust that by this time you do understand that I’m referring to the Hartmann/Curry Grids and never, not ever, any other sorts of grids) is not a clear-cut process— “insert tab A into slot B”—fashion. On the other hand, neither is one obliged (I fervently hope) to invoke the assistance of benevolent faeries, or conversely, to have a firm grip on the most abstruse concepts of advanced geophysics. I’m a simple, ordinary sort of dude, prone to frequent episodes of clueless doltish-ness interspersed with feeble attempts at wit. Just ask my wife.
So, my dear Ian, I’m taking you at your word: “Also, it will be more interesting to hear how it progresses and changes, rather just hearing about a finished article.” This is precisely what I’m trying to get across— what I’m learning, observing and concluding. It’s a work in progress and I can only report on it in installments (“This’ll have to do for now…”). I’m very limited to how much time I can spend each day and it's slow, rather tedious going. If that doesn’t meet your sweet, inchoate desires, then for goodness’ sake bend yourself a pair of L-rods, get on out to some suitable field, and have a go at it ourself! That way we can compare notes, which I would very much like to do. With anyone, for that matter.
There is some progress forth coming which I’ll report on later today.

Last edited by CharlieBnoobee on Fri Sep 05, 2014 9:23 pm; edited 2 times in total

^^^ I can't think of any sensible response, but good luck with whatever it is that you are up to.

Well Ian, sincere thanks for the well-wishing on my enterprise.

At the moment I’m being thunder-stormed out of grid dowsing, but I thought I might at least formulate a brief statement (and I know all too well that, for me, ‘brief statement’ is virtually an oxymoron— *sigh*) of “whatever it is that I’m up to”

A. John Harding’s thesis, that bees thrive extraordinarily well if their hives are placed on Hartmann Grid intersections, bears examination.

B. In order to do that we must first be able to locate this grid and its intersections. What the Grid is and/or how it works is, at this point in time, totally irrelevant.

C. My own experience with rudimentary dowsing, and the cumulative dowsing experiences of others indicate that ordinary folks can find this grid with reasonable accuracy—at least for hive placement purposes—if there were a simple protocol or procedure to follow.

D. Judging from the lengthy past discussion of this topic on this very website, and from a fairly thorough internet search, no such protocol has yet to be developed and disseminated for public consumption (for public indigestion, maybe) .

E. Like a true Yank, I’m undertaking to fill this lack myself. As my grandpa used to say: “If you want a job done right, you’d best do it yourself”.

A. John Harding’s thesis, that bees thrive extraordinarily well if their hives are placed on Hartmann Grid intersections,bears examination.

Just because something is called a thesis does not confer upon it intellectual rigour or validity. It takes evidence to do that and you have yet to point to a single piece of that. Simply repeating the assertion that this Hartman Grid exists in the absence of any evidence whatsoever does not make it true and neither does dressing it up in a façade of intellectual respectability by referring to such an assertion as a "thesis".

Quote:

B. In order to do that we must first be able to locate this grid and its intersections. What the Grid is and/or how it works is, at this point in time, totally irrelevant.

Locate it how? It's means absolutely nothing to say one can locate something one cannot even demonstrate exists, cannot say what form it takes, nor how it works by walking round a field with two bits of wire in one's hands, unless it can be demonstrated how this is achieved or has been achieved by others. Again, to repeat, such evidence must be verifiable and does not take the form of someone simply asserting they can "do it". You have provided no evidence or links to such evidence. You've merely stated what you and other dowsers do. That does not mean that what you do is achieving what you assert you are achieving. You say you are locating woo-woo lines. I say you are walking round a field with some wire in your hands and the rest is entirely unsubstantiated assertions. I don't need any additional evidence to back up the above because that is precisely what you say you are doing. You, on the other hand, do need to provide evidence since it is you who is asserting that you are achieving something in addition to the above. Simply re-asserting you are achieving it does not constitute evidence.

Quote:

C. My own experience with rudimentary dowsing, and the cumulative dowsing experiences of others indicate that ordinary folks can find this grid with reasonable accuracy—at least for hive placement purposes—if there were a simple protocol or procedure to follow.

Find what grid? You firstly assert the existence of a "Hartman gird" in the absence of any evidence whatsoever and then further assert you can locate this thing that you have no evidence for. I could just as easily say I believe there is a little green man who lives in the sole of my shoe and I could then go on to describe the method I use to reliably communicate with him. That doesn't mean any of it is true other than inside my own febrile imagination. There is a difference between the actual material world out there and the beliefs in one's head. In other words, just because one believes something to be materially true in the world, does not make it true. It is true if it actually exists. To repeat, you have provided not a shred of evidence nor pointed to any that demonstrates this.

Quote:

D. Judging from the lengthy past discussion of this topic on this very website, and from a fairly thorough internet search, no such protocol has yet to be developed and disseminated for public consumption (for public indigestion, maybe) .

No such protocol has yet been developed because there is nothing to base such a protocol on.

Quote:

E. Like a true Yank, I’m undertaking to fill this lack myself. As my grandpa used to say: “If you want a job done right, you’d best do it yourself”.

I'm sorry, but you are just making stuff up in your head and are then believing it to be real simply because it exists as a belief in your head. Occasionally, I dare say, you may find something of material interest. However, if the occurrence of such finds is no better than chance or may just as easily be ascribed to ordinary observation, to assume the rods are responsible is simply an example of good old fashioned confirmation bias.

An archetypical example of which may be found below:

Quote:

“Once I went to a man’s home and warned him NOT to sleep in a certain spot. He thought I was a fool. Twelve years later, he died of cancer.” --Ernst Hartmann, M.D

There is, in fact, a very straightforward way in which the existence of a Hartman grid could be demonstrated and it doesn't involve bits of wire or dowsing "protocols". If we take the claims of the proponents of such a grid at face value and accept, for the sake of argument, that this grid affects the well-being of life on it's various lines and intersections, then its existence should be easily indirectly observable in the geographical layout of life on the surface of the earth. That is to say, we should see ecologically systemic patterns that correspond to this grid's existence since, through a process of Darwinian selection, life would have undoubtedly evolved to avoid or cope differentially with such-illness inducing danger zones. Any life that did not evolve such capacities would produce fewer offspring leaving only the high avoiders/copers to inhabit the environment, in turn revealing the Hartman grid pattern that provides the foundation of such capacities. In other words, life would either completely avoid such danger zones or it would avoid them differentially depending on differences of evolved capacities to cope. Either way, a discernible pattern of the distribution of life would be clearly observable. The fact that evidence for such a such a pattern is completely and utterly absent can only mean one of two things; either the grid that is proposed to exist does not exist at all or the effect of its existence on the well-being of life is so minuscule as to have no measurable effect.

I'm going with the former.

Last edited by stevecook172001 on Sun Sep 07, 2014 11:08 am; edited 1 time in total

Hi Steve—
Once again, thanks for your thoughtful reply —as monotonous as it was. I’ll answer it counterpoint by counterpoint, but first I’d like you to shed some light on a question you’ve elicited in me, namely: Why all this stubborn impatience? The tedium of your reply (banging away on the same point over and over and over) strikes me as similar to a kid’s tediously repeated “Are we there yet”? in the fourth hour of a long road trip to the beach. It all indicates, methinks, a rather incongruous interest in a phenomenon you staunchly insist doesn’t exist. You wouldn’t go tagging along after the poor soul who insists that a little green man indwells the sole of his (the claimant’s) left Florsheim oxford, badgering him to produce sound scientific evidence to support his claim, would you? I daresay you wouldn’t do that even if he only said there just might be a little shoe resident, but wasn’t at all sure. If you’re as sure of this alleged grid’s non-existence as the non-existence of little green shoe folk, then why this impatience? (BTW, I love your metaphor and will use it at first available opportunity. It’s not under copyright is it? If so, no problem, I’ll just steal it.)
Now, I fully understand that so far I have not presented any evidence supporting grid advocates’ claims. I get that. I agree with you on that. And I know that my slow pace (see item F. in my last post.) may be frustrating to people who might be interested —for whatever reason—in seeing if there’s some decent evidence for a purported energy grid of some sort. But for someone like you, who has seemingly jammed his banner down onto the a priori Dowsing Is Doo-Doo hilltop, I would expect mostly a leaden indifference to any forthcoming evidence, whatever its clarity.

But for the interested folks out there:
I’m halfway into a test that I described in the old thread and alluded to in a reply to Phil in this current thread. It involves a bit of surveying technique called trilateration. What I’ve done so far is located by dowsing, a 2 X 2 cell grid pattern on a grassy slope behind my house by marking the places that my rods respond. I did this within a rough area about 40’ x 40’.
On opposite sides of this area I set two reference pins each exactly 45’ apart; therefore, the trial area lies roughly in the middle of a very irregular quadrilateral shape. By measuring the diagonals of this quadrilateral, I could then represent it accurately on paper using the 1” = 40’ scale on an engineers’ ruler. Of course, only one of the diagonals is needed to determine the shape of the quadrilateral, and for that very reason the second diagonal makes a good check.
On t’other side of the pond, using metric tools and measurements is somewhat easier; use a 20 - 30 M. tape (or better, two tapes—cheap Chinese work fine) and the 1: 50 scale on any draftsman’s ruler. Taking field measurements to as fine as a cm. is like measuring a block of pudding with a micrometer caliper. Just keep to the nearest whole dm. or to the nearest tenth ft. using a 100’ surveyor’s tape. This translates on paper to the nearest 2mm. which is very easy to draw, or an 80th inch which is decidedly not.

I then took the distances of each dowsed point (and this is where the use of two tapes really speeds things up) to the two reference pins on the N. side of the trial area. Nine measurement pairs in all, representing 9 triangles all with a common 45’ base, and their 9 apexes at each of the intersections of the 2 x 2 grid portion.

Having done that I went to the drafting table and laid out the grid on paper. Doing this almost demands the use of a beam compass that’ll reach to about 16”/40cm. I made my own so I haven’t priced them. Since there were no obvious errors, I went back out to the field and pulled up all the grid markers (not the reference pins), and close-mowed the whole area to erase any traces of where I’d been walking about.

The next step is to once again dowse the grid (settle down Steve, this doesn’t concern you) and repeat the whole process but this time using the two reference pins on the S. side of the area. I’m about halfway through the dowsing part now. As I’ve tried to explain, my time’s limited, and the weather hasn’t been too cooperative when I have had some time.

By dowsing out a portion of this ostensible grid a second time at least several days after I’d first done it (and with an intervening cycle of rain and mowing), I was reasonably blind to where I’d located it previously. Measuring it to a quite different pair of reference points will also keep me blind to that process as well. If the 1st and 2nd grid layouts wind up coinciding (or even only being co-linear) on paper to within 0.2in. or 4mm for all nine points, then I think most simple, ordinary folk like yours truly, would be satisfied that an objective, discoverable, locatable grid—of whatever nature it may be—exists “out there”. I’m fairly confident it wouldn’t satisfy you, Steve auld sweetheart, but that’s a separate issue of a more philosophical nature, wouldn’t you say?

When I get around to field measuring, then plotting on paper this second grid, but let’s say there’s just no coincidence with the first, then I’ll post that result and Jumbleoak, Madasafish and Steve can all have a big crowing fest—put it on my tab. I confess I’ll be disappointed because frankly, I would like to think that there’s a relatively easy measure that can be taken to improve honeybee habitat. Still, I will have at least tried to find it.

So, you are pacing out a 40' by 40' rough quadrilateral from two opposite sides and then comparing the results of your two pacings to see if they correspond in terms of the places in the quadrilateral where you decided the magic happened. And, if they do correspond, you will then take this as incontrovertible evidence of the existence a geological "energy" grid and that, furthermore, in the absence of any evidence (as evidenced by your noted lack of addressing my question on it) of such a grid having any effect whatsoever on the well-being of life, as would be observed by naturally occurring ecological dispersal patterns, you would then proclaim this to be a sound basis for locating beehives.

Seriously?

Okay, I'm done Charlie. We're getting nowhere. Good luck with whatever it is you believe you are doing.

No Steve, I don’t think you’re seeing at all what I’ve tried to describe in words. For one thing, there’s no pacing involved at all. I appreciate the quick feed-back however, because it tells me that I’m just going to have to get this up on YouTube at some point, or at least supply some graphics, if it’s to be at all useful to anyone. Also:
Although I said I’d address each of your 5 counterpoints to my 5 points, and am, or at least was, intending to do that in a subsequent post, I gather from what you’ve just said (and I agree), that any further back-and-forth between us would be a total exercise in futility which neither of us need. If anyone out there is interested in entering into this conversation or finding out how to locate the grid for the purposes of hive placement, they can speak up.

I'm following the debate and your progress, Charlie, with interest. And I greatly admire your indefatigable spirit!
I think what throws me is that you talk about dowsing for this or that grid or the other lines. This throws me off, as I don't understand how you "tune in" to one or the other.

In reality, are you just doing exactly the same thing with the rods each time and looking for the same response, but the location and direction of the responses, is what determines if it is Hartman or Curry or whatever? I assume that it is only by plotting them that you can establish which you are looking at (if they exist) but by plotting them, you surely risk tainting the experiment with the temptation to find what you are looking for?

I'm definitely still open to persuasion, but I sometimes struggle to follow exactly what you are saying. Your intellect and whit is just a bit beyond me sometimes and I can't keep up.... I'm just a simple country girl!!....plain, simple English would make it easier. Definitely something visual would help enormously though.

The response I look for as I slowly walk forward or backward is the rods swinging inward. This is the Standard Response, so to speak. Its pretty much the same whatever the stimulus may be, varying only in 'degree' not in 'kind'. I've seen one YouTube clip where the dowser's rods swung outward (in response to a purported water course) but the only time I've experienced that is when the rods are swiveling in some sort of plastic tubes I'm holding—ball point sleeves are commonly used. For me, that technique is overly sensitive.
If I get a response, the first thing I do is step back just a bit, then to the left or right about a good yard, and then forward again. This tells me if that response was due to a grid line running perpendicular to my line of travel. By ensuring that the travel directions are oriented to the cardinal compass points., it will be a pretty safe bet that when a crosswise line is detected, it's part of the Hartmann Grid. I've found that if I ignore (i.e., not mark with a pin) diagonally running lines—be they Curry lines or any other stimulus—a NSEW grid will emerge sooner than if I try to keep track of every spot where I get a response.

The purpose of plotting —i.e. triangulating to the reference lines— the grid portion that's been detected, is to accurately record on paper an accurate reduced scale representation of a detected portion of the grid, not to find it. This lets the dowser afterwards completely erase the detected grid's 'field record', specifically the marker tags or pins set at the grid intersections, as well as to erase any subtler traces —like tramped down grass— by mowing, raking, etc. Ideally there should be no cues of any kind, including subliminal, left between trials. This is the reason for using a second pair of reference points; when a grid portion is newly detected (found) a second time, and its marked intersections are then plotted relative to this second pair of points, the measured distances won’t bear any resemblance to the first set of measurements. That thereby removes the source of observer bias I think you're alluding to.

Well, that's that. For the time being or at least until I can get someone out there-wherever-that-is to show me how to make sense out of the rod responses I get while stumbling about in the field. Emphasis on the word 'stumbling'. Yesterday evening I finished dowsing out the second alleged grid portion, and today I plotted it on paper (just now finished). I wanted to be sure Steve, J.O. and Madas. are the first to know that there was absolutely zero correspondence between the 1st and 2nd trials. Respective cell sizes were different by about a foot, nor was there any similarity as to bearing—they were 15 degrees off from each other. Both 'grids' were fairly rectilinear, (within a degree) but that may well have been due to my own observer bias.

I truly hate, as in Detest, giving anyone cause to gloat (unless it's myself, of course) so I have a favor to ask of you guys to allay the sting: First, have a pint of the best local brew you can lay hands on and describe the experience to me as best you can. If you accompany that with a bit of high standard pub food, so much the better. I'll then try my best to enjoy the pleasure vicariously. Secondly, and I'm serious-as-a-heart-attack here, make an honest attempt to replicate the little informal experiment I described in one of my earlier posts to J.O. (the one that was done at Fire Station 22 many years ago.) It would be best if there were some moon bat like me available to show you just how to do this.
That's not so much to ask for one who has just been Brutally Humiliated and Crushed, now is it?

Charlie, the lack of correspondence between your two readings may be subject to exactly the same bias as could be the case if they did correspond. In other words, the results are arguably invalid in any event. The only way to test your hypothesis properly is to have three separate people dowsing the same patch of land. Two of them should be self-professed dowsers and the third should be someone who has never dowsed before (otherwise known as a "control" subject). The control subject should be given just sufficient instructions as to be able to note down the positions on the patch of land when the rods "respond". But, they should not be told what it is they are supposed to be looking for. When any one of the three people is dowsing the area, the other two should not be present . Furthermore, none of the participants should communicate with each other in any way until the experiment is complete. Ideally, you should do this experiment with three groups of people. Though, each person should still do the test as individuals with no communication with anyone else in any group, including their own. At the end of the experiment, the results of each group could be averaged to produce 3 averaged reading. These readings could them be compared in the manner you have described.

Also, the area should be completely mown prior to any of the people doing the dowsing. This is in order to minimise the chances of what are called "order effects". Meaning the chances of one participant's readings affecting the readings of others.

Having said all of the above, even if the readings did correspond, this would still leave wide open the reason for such correspondence. That is to say, the correspondence could be down to geographic features of the land that made it likely that people would stand, walk or stumble, be distracted etc in ways that made the rods tremble at similar places. Nevertheless, if the correspondence was particularly, high, this would suggest something more was going on and so would warrant further investigation.

However, even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that all the readings corresponded highly and so there was a real phenomenon being detected, this would still not tell us anything about its beneficial (or deleterious) effects on life or, even, that it has any effect at all. In order to test that (assuming some kind of geological energy grid phenomenon was identified as existing ) you would then need to place various beehives at various locations on the patch of land, feed and treat them in precisely the same way for a season and then measure their state of health at the end of the season and correlate this with their positions vis a vis the grid. Only if such a correlation showed a statistically significant relationship between the placement of hives on the grid and the subsequent well being of the hives would you be able to make any kind of definitive conclusions.

Just out of curiosity (though I think like the proverbial cat I shall regrete it) if this is considered to be a form of energy why shouldn't we be able to measure it instrumentally rather than subjectively?

For the main part, I agree with you without reservation. I guess. In fact, I stated as early on as my second post:
“The second test, to determine the effect of hive placement on the grid, would be much more difficult and require the resources usually found only in larger institutions of learning, govt., or larger corporations. That's why the mention of a doctoral dissertation. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, however”. Perhaps you missed that. Judging from your reply, however that I finally did succeed in pointing out (at least to you) a path that could be followed if sufficient resources allowed, to test for the objective reality of this purported doo-hicky.

I think where we stand now involves at once a philosophical issue and an entirely pragmatic one. While I’m in no way a philosopher, it nevertheless seems to my limited thinking, that to say ‘X’ does not exist because there’s no currently falsifiable way to demonstrate it does, is as empty as asserting X does exist without pointing to any demonstrable indications of its existence. All one can accurately say about ‘X’ is “we don’t know, under the present economic, or ethical, or technological or etc. etc. constraints on our ability to test for it, whether ‘X’ exists or not.” Full stop.

On the pragmatic other hand, I think that one can validly say that if no negative consequences have ever been reported regarding the use of ‘X’ in context ‘Y’, and some benefits have been reported to such alleged use, and there are absolutely no peripheral costs whatsoever involved in making use of X in that way, then for pity’s sake why not do that? The only reasons not to could only be non-reasonable matters such as taste, whim, fashion etc. where De Gustibus Non Est Disputandum is the regnant principle.

Anyway, I’ve given this thing the best shot I can presently afford, so I’ll leave it at that.

I would be very interested in such a properly designed and conducted experiment as Steve suggests, if it could be done double-blind, with no attachment to any particular outcome.

I have also considered Andy's point many times in the past - that any such 'energy' ought to be detectable by objective means, if it has any basis in fact. Certainly, any force capable of acting on the human body in such a way as to make rods move ought to be within the spectrum of detectability and be quantifiable, whether it is electro-magnetic or some fluctuation in gravitational force. If the rods are to be regarded as the 'meter' of such a force, then it should be detectable by anyone with the required limbs, I would have thought.

All forms of energy though are incredibly easy to measure. Gravity can be measured by the rate of acceleration of an object, the direction of a magnetic field using a pin floating in water, temperature by the expansion of a liquid. The problem I think you have with measuring/quantifying/identifying the amount and/or location of this "energy" in a non-subjective manner is that there is no definition of what it is. The description is fairly 'woolly'. It is currently (at most) the personal observation of a phenomena. If you consider that your dowsing is capable of locating these areas then:
a) map them.
b) demonstrate the presence of a form of energy that either: i) intersects at those points, ii) is increased at that points, iii) is decreased at that point.

I believe there has been some who have tried to connect the existence of telluric currents (a measureable energy field) with the hartmann and curry grids. The entire foundation and description of each element is completely different so I doubt there is any connection between the them BUT telluric currents are at least known to exist and are measurable. Magnetic fields also known to exist and are measurable. Both are easily measured and utilised.

If we are to believe that:
a) Bees are aware of energy fields AND
b) Utilise these fields to decide on colony placement AND
c) Thrive or fail to thrive based on their location in relation to these fields.
Then surely it would follow that we should start our investigations with known measurable energies (which would arguably have a higher influence and greater significance), rather than energies that are unmeasurable by any non-subjective means.
As to your belief that “if it works does it matter how or why”. Well I suppose not, but I am afraid without non-subjective measurement you have absolutely no way of assessing whether or not what you are trying works or not. You are essentially in the position of just placing hives randomly and stating whether they thrive or not and frankly that is pretty much what everyone else is doing already without the need for copper rods.
best of luck

Thanks for your posts, August:
So far, they’re the best replies I’ve seen so far on this thread. (You have hands-on experience with experimental design; that’s simultaneously a question and a statement.) Let me unpack it chunk-by-chunk.

AugustC wrote:

The problem I think you have with measuring/quantifying/identifying the amount and/or location of this "energy" in a non-subjective manner is that there is no definition of what it is. The description is fairly 'woolly'.

I’d say the only thing we should be interested in at this early stage is locating this elusive “energy”/force grid in as non-subjective manner as possible, using the technology we have at hand-and-money.

Quote:

It is currently (at most) the personal observation of a phenomena.

Exactly. Might we call it then the pre-hypothesis stage?

Quote:

If you consider that your dowsing is capable of locating these areas then:
a) map them.
b) demonstrate the presence of a form of energy that either: i) intersects at those points, ii) is increased at that points, iii) is decreased at that point.

Whoa, slow down. You’re getting the mapping (a) before (b-i)—a form of force presence that can and has been demonstrated to manifest in lines that intersect at points. And b-ii and b-iii will have to wait for the appropriate tools & methods to show up.

Quote:

The entire foundation and description of each element is completely different so I doubt there is any connection between the them...

From what I’ve gathered through direct experience and the speculations of others, is that the ‘foundation and description’ of the H-C grids is so inchoate that it’s impossible to say at this point whether there is or isn’t any connection between the grids and telluric currents. But that’s a quibble.

Quote:

If we are to believe that:
a) Bees are aware of energy fields AND
b) Utilise these fields to decide on colony placement AND
c) Thrive or fail to thrive based on their location in relation to these fields.
Then surely it would follow that we should start our investigations with known measurable energies (which would arguably have a higher influence and greater significance), rather than energies that are unmeasurable by any non-subjective means.
As to your belief that “if it works does it matter how or why”. Well I suppose not, but I am afraid without non-subjective measurement you have absolutely no way of assessing whether or not what you are trying works or not.

I totally-in-part-mainly agree— except where you put words in my mouth. What I’ve been trying to say is: ‘IF we can locate this elusive grid, and the intersections are as close together as they’re claimed to be, AND/OR it hardly costs a copper to put them on these intersections, THEN why not do just that? Until we get to that point, we can’t even figure out how to measure it, or if it’s even measurable at all. To learn anything about the shy Ring-tailed Swamp Squall that has been sighted by some few (we hope) sober outdoorsmen, we first have to get our hands on it. Stand to reason?

The task at hand then (i.e. getting our hands on 'it') is learning to discriminate between the various ‘stimuli’ that cause rods to swivel in my hands the way they do when I move across a piece of iron or a water pipe. Then and only then do I have a chance at discerning/finding a NSEW running grid pattern separate from all the other response points that are out there in the field. What I’m doing now, however, is in part imposing a rectilinear, consistent cell sized grid on the somewhat hodgepodge array of marked response points I acquire with my rods. This just doesn’t cut it, as shown by the lack of correspondence between the two trials I ran.

Speaking of correspondence, and in response to Steve’s last response:

I made a rough calculation of the probabilities of randomly obtaining correspondences between two trials laying out just a single grid cell approx. 10’ X 10’ (3M X 3M) in which the correspondence at all four intersections falls to within:
10% of the cell dimensions —Probability = 1/160,000
Tighten the allowable range of correspondence down to:
5% of the cell dimensions —Probability = 1/10,240,000!
This range, i.e. about a half foot, is just doable with the “resolving power” (to borrow a term from optics) of L-rods, although the practitioner might need to get down on his knees in order to bring the rods closer to the ground, and take an average of a half dozen or so readings. The recording technique of ‘trilateralization’ has a precision at this scale of three significant figures—i.e. ten X greater than the L-rods, so there isn’t any significant ‘blurring’ of results from that quarter. But just to make extra, extra sure, the Extra Fastidious Researcher could have a third trial performed by a disinterested 3rd party with just enough “L-rod training” to get reliable responses. If the degree of correspondence was then only to the 10% level, the likelihood of that 3rd trial's outcome occurring by chance becomes one in 1,638,400,000,000. In other words, I wouldn’t bet on the random outcome horse.

So, Steve and Phil— Do you really think that the effects of environmental factors influencing the dowser (via what?, sight, sound, smell, sixth sense??), or stumbling over the same tuft of turf, or proceedural artifacts could counteract such colossal improbabilities like these? At least to the extent that they’d have to be controlled? Also, Steve, since Experience Level of Practitioner is not an independent variable, why control for that either? Controlling for the possible, albeit outrageously improbable confounding factors you’ve mentioned so far is, at this stage, entirely academic; furthermore, it’s unlikely that they’ll ever graduate from that status since to do so would require funds in the six figure range—be they $$, ₤₤ or €€. Have you two got cash like that lying around? I don’t.

But let’s just say some of us eventually do arrive at the point where we can dowse a grid pattern of responses with good trial-to-trial reliability, and this pattern is oriented NSEW. We can then safely say that we’re dealing with an Objective ‘It’ outside ourselves, so we’ll call 'It' the Hartmann Grid just to give it a name. Only at that point might we start talking about testing for any statistically significant effects this grid might have on bee health. But unless the inconvenient matter of funding can be taken by the horns and wrestled to the ground, all the talking still remains just so much academic armchair blather. Not to throw a wet blanket on that; on the contrary, armchair blathering happens to be one of my favorite forms of indoor recreation!

In the meantime, I’ll be keeping my eyes and ears open to ways of sorting out rod responses.
Warmest regards
Charlie
P.S. If you'd like to know how I figured the probabilities. Just ask by pm.

Conserving wild bees

Research suggests that bumble bee boxes have a very low success rate in actually attracting bees into them. We find that if you create an environment where first of all you can attract mice inside, such as a pile of stones, a drystone wall, paving slabs with intentionally made cavities underneath, this will increase the success rate.

Most bumble bee species need a dry space about the size a football, with a narrow entrance tunnel approximately 2cm in diameter and 20 cm long. Most species nest underground along the base of a linear feature such as a hedge or wall. Sites need to be sheltered and out of direct sunlight.